The GOP’s radical Tea Party fringe is forcing the GOP away from the relatively moderate Mitt Romney toward Rick Santorum, whose agenda has perhaps more to do with righting such imagined “wrongs” as abortion and gay marriage, as fiscal conservatism.

Have no doubt about it, Rick Santorum is unelectable. His views are too extreme for most of the electorate to stomach. If 10% of the population is gay and would, to a person, vote against him, and if the vast majority of female voters want the government out of their reproductive lives, it’s clear he’d lose against an Obama whose fortunes are on the rise after years in the sub-50% approval doldrums.

An Obama at a 45% approval rating could probably win reelection in a landslide if his opponent turns out to be Rick Santorum. Most independents would have little choice but to either vote for Obama or sit the election out. I suspect mos

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

vicemagnet

@vicemagnet That doesn't really need to be answered, and it has nothing to do with the article. I've never really heard more than a handful of people on here actually state who they would vote for. Its usually just trolls bashing one candidate or another.

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

stevecore

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

vicemagnet

@vicemagnet The republicans will never allow Ron Paul to be the nominee so the question is moot.
In a magical fantasy world where he did win the nomination I would vote for Obama.
Not because I love the guy or agree with everything he has done but because I do not like Ron Paul's domestic policy.
I love his foreign policy and I highly respect the man but his domestic policy is no different than run of the mill republican asshats.
Suck the cock of the rich and fuck the poor in the ass.
I can't voMore..te for that.
Obama might be sucking some rich cock but at least he pretends to give a shit about the poor and women and maybe even gays.
Ron Paul says fuck all the other countries and fuck everybody who doesn't have money.
I respect the man far more than any other republican EVER.
Possibly more than any politician ever but as libertarian as he is, he is still too far to the right for me to support.Less..

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

radiofreak

The real brilliance of this graphic is that it encapsulates most leftist stereotypes of a group who's philosophy they materially do not understand.

For instance, the Amnesia Lobe on the right side. Against chance and rational thought, it has somehow escaped the libs grasp that the Tea Party was begun BECAUSE George Bush and other neo-cons supported TARP and other leftist, statists position. The Tea Party did not forget TARP & Bush, it was a trigger point and catalyst. But the Left Wing NutsMore.. with their index fingers in their ears and horsey blinders on march right past any observation or input that causes cognitive dissonance. Ah, the nirvana of mental isolationism. I'll never know what they feel.Less..

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Tongueboy

@Tongueboy
Sure. As far as the article goes, except for the insults, I don't entirely disagree. Mitt Romney is problematic for consistency and his Mormanism. Santorum, regardless of his relentless objectives, is a big government neo-con. I think the GOP would be very pleased with them or Newt. Fuss and spit all they want, I see no vast difference in their statism vs Obama's statism.

On to the graphic...
Angry Fat Old White men. You know, if it wasn't for all the blacks and hispanic as participMore..ants, chairs, and spokes persons for the Tea Party you might have a point. But this was bogus from the word go. Unlike Leftist who do not extend the courtesy of allowing minorities to think off the plantation, the Tea Party welcomes all who respect the rule of law and Constitutional small
government.

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Yukon6400

@Yukon6400 I thumb down the ones I don't like, the ones I think are stupid or the ones I think someone made by looking at the picture and not reading the article.
Is that OK with you????????
By all means, get your sleep.
I won't be losing any waiting for your response ;o)

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Tongueboy

Although I don't know what your definition of "elites" is in this instance, I, and I believe the Tea Party, no longer identify with personalities, but principles. This is why the Tea Party is no Republican^2 (squared), but divorced themselves from Republicanism statist direction. Yes, they run *as* Republicans and not a third party, but rather than joining the Republican party, they are seeking to hijack it, and I believe they did that in tMore..he last election.

Whenever I express a principled criticism about liberalism, the very first response is, "What about George Bush?" What do I care about George Bush? I wasn't talking about Bush, I am not here to defend an individual, but a principle. Any individual that follows good principles should be applauded for that, and any deviations should be criticized. The fact that George Bush was effectively operation as a Democrat or that Rush Limbaugh did drugs is irrelevant to ANY argument for or against redistribtuionism, foreign aid, or anything else. I fail to see the advantage in aligning oneself with a person as though you are their defense attorney.

"DUMB ASS LOBE"
Part 1:"Understanding what the founding fathers wrote."
Without specifics I can't address this effectively. I have dozens of books on the founding fathers, homeschooled both of my children to know them and their wisdom and failures better, I have in my possession tools to better understand the founders and their writings like the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary and William Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England first edition 1765-1769 Fascimile, and I guarantee you nobody here has visited Constitution.org and studied the debates on the Constitution like I have because I am fairly certain you get you jollies elsewhere, unlike me.

All of that being said, I think I have a fairly decent grasp on what the founders believed. I challenge you to find others on LiveLeak who have quoted them more than I in these comment sections. The Tea Party principally follows and desires a return to the Constitution from what I have seen. Any individual can go off on a rant or tangent, but as a whole the group is just a bunch of folks like you and me fed up with Washington BS. The Repubs & Dems have failed them time after time. Only a lemming would watch 10,000 failed attempts before them and still jump. The Tea Party is trying very hard not to be a lemming.

Part 2:"...that the health care bill would help them..."

It is obvious that there are different ways to accomplish a goal. From a pragmatic position we could look at the results. From a principled position, we could look at the justice of it.

Let's say that I am a nutritionist and I could fundamentally improve your bad diet of eating candy, chips, and processed foods. Pragmatically, you would indeed be better off healthwise, but you would have lost your liberty to choose a basic responsibility to your satisfaction. Should government or I or anyone else encroach upon you and your free will to achieve our definition of what is good for you?

So on principle alone, Obamacare encroaches - forces - people to make a transaction not of their free will. In a free society this is a no no.

From an intellectual perspective, Universal health insurance - which is erroneously called universal health care - destroys the very concept of "insurance", which is a voluntarily entered into transaction where the insured pool their risk for a rare event. The government forces the terms, participation, and the coverage pre-existing conditions. To cover a pre-existing condition is to insure a burning house. It then changes from insurance - risk pooling - to redistributionism. Utter intellectual and economic fail.

However, there is great evidence that from a pragmatic view, Obamacare will be inefficient and cause real healthcare to diminish. Please Google "wait times" and the country of your choice. The results are all about nationalized healthcare countries trying to control the extended wait times in an environment where the government has destroyed incentive to help the patient.

Particularly sad is how your side equates the very rational, logical, and supported by observation perspective that centralized planned health care is inefficient, with being uncaring, unloving, uncompassionate, etc.

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Yukon6400

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Tongueboy

It's funny hearing a decidedly liberal commentator pan the Tea Party while ripping on Santorum, all while actually supporting Obama. Yeah, GOP voters should base their decision on what this guy has to say. Right....

The other major flaw with this article is that the Tea Party isn't fueling Santorum. A much older GOP voting bloc is. Santorum is strong with social conservatives, who have thrown around their weight in the GOP for at least two or three decades. They lost out in 2008 with McCaiMore..n's nomination, and the GOP went on to suffer badly for that decision. But this time around social conservatives, who tend to turn out for primaries and caucuses, seem to be exercising their force a bit more aggressively.

The Tea Party meanwhile? It's lost steam. Bachmann fizzled. Cain tanked. Gingrich faded. A few Tea Partiers might be in Santorum's camp, but the people really driving Santorum are the same social conservatives that gave Huckabee success in 2008 and that have been swinging GOP nominations for many years. Really, given Santorum's record, a group of people against government taxation and spending really has little business supporting him anyway.Less..

mikedelta12

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Tongueboy

@mikedelta12 The teabaggers are all about "my way or the highway".
Not a great negotiating structure.
They will be gone by the next election cycle.
Then they will return as the undead aborted baby of the son of the slut of the wife of Satan who will inherit Israel.
Same thing every election cycle.

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

Tongueboy

@Tongueboy Quite the contrary. It's just a flat assessment of where things stand in the GOP race right now, contrary to the absurd claims that this post tries to make about Tea Partiers and Santorum.

The fact is that the Tea Party is not throwing nearly so much weight around as it did in 2010. Candidates aren't trying to win Tea Party favor. Tea Party rallies aren't in the news. Tea Partiers gave some support to various candidates at various moments in the race, but their influence seems toMore.. have dissipated. Now we're left with a GOP business choice of Romney and a GOP evangelical/social conservative choice of Santorum. If it's come down to these two candidates, then it's pretty clear that the Tea Party has lost its voice.

To me, this is unfortunate, and the Tea Party could still rebound. But people are going to have to get riled up again, start showing up at primaries, and put some people in office this election cycle because the GOP seems to be going back to its old self.Less..

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

buzzardist

@Tongueboy In the fiscal question of do we spend more or do we spend less, there really isn't a lot of room for compromise. People can compromise over what we spend money on and where we make cuts, but if the Tea Party's goal is to cut federal spending, while the rest of Washington wants to keep spending high, then it's clear that compromise isn't really an option.

It's also worth noting that the opponents of the Tea Party are just as intractable in their ideological drive to increase the sizeMore.. of government.Less..

Posted Feb-23-2012 By

buzzardist

The Arizona GOP debate was a joke. Mittens and Newt are fine with tax $$$ to help Atlanta and Salt Lake City host the Olympic Games, but they oppose tax $$$ loaned to GM and Chrysler so our country could save American jobs for the middle class. Our tax $$$ helped Mormon Mitt get the games to SLC, and our tax $$$ helped House Ethics Poster Boy and Fannie Mae Historian, Newt to bring the games to his home state of Georgia. But screw you middle America! Mitt was kinda ok with tax $$$ for Wall St. HMore..e was still in the process of moving all his cash to foreign banks, so the "to big to fail" rule helped him. But the "to big to fail" rule cannot be used by Detroit. I guess it must have just been bad Karma that caused a GOP campaign bus to breakdown in West Hollywood recently. I’m hoping that next weeks episode of the GOP debacle clears up my lingering questions.

1. Is tax $$$ to the Olympics an earmark or a GOP Kickback(not an Olympic Sport)?
2. Ron Paul?
3. When entitlements end, how radical must I be to get my forign aid?
4. Is taking away the rights of American women really creating jobs?Less..